/ck/ - Food & Cooking

No absolutely not.

>>7885282

Not if you present it as chili. You need to present it as CHILI WITH BEANS. Two different dishes, really.

>>7885282
yes, its disgusting without them.

>>7885282
it's the difference between meat sauce for a topping and an actual meal, so yes. every other answer is wrong. thank you and goodnight.

yes

Of course, unless you come from one of a couple bum fuck villages in middle of nowhere Texas, are competing in a chili competition with outdated rules and standards, or are putting it on a hot dog.

Otherwise beans are a standard ingredient in chili everywhere else. Also, chili is best served over white rice and topped with grated cheddar and diced raw white onion.

Not this thread again

it's not chili if it doesn't have beans?

>>7885282
It's like this OP, Chili with beans as an entree, and chili without beans as a topping. I hope this post was helpful and satisfactory.

>>7885302
go home Texas

>>7885282
Yes, they improve the texture. Beanless chili is only for chilidogs.

>>7885335
I don't know man, a nice flour tortilla is pretty nice

>my vegetarian chilli is beans without the meat

>>7885282
just when i thought this horrid meme had vanished for good, you go and revive it. i don't know weather to hate you or absolutely detest you.

Yes and you are stupud for asking this question.

Yes, but just as long as there isn't a ratio of like 5:1 for beans to meat. Equal or slightly less beans is GOAT.

I like it with or without beans. Not picky.

>>7885438

I think this is how most people feel. There are just a few autists and trolls (most likely not even from the US) who like to insist that chili can't have beans just to rile people up.

THE WHOLE THING IS FUCKING SUBJECTIVE. ITS GOOD EITHER WAY! STOP FUCKING ARGUING AND EAT CHILI!

>>7885282
They don't but I like putting them in, since I like beans.
Beans are good for you.
Buy some today.

>>7885282
if you like beans, put them in
if you don't like beans, don't put them in

if it's someone else's chili and it's different to how you like it, don't be a bitch

>>7885282
Literally the only time I can stand to eat beans is when they are in chili

>>7885556
Believe it or not but some Anons are that autistic about food.

Absolutely.

>>7885282
that's sum good ' '

>>7885302
>>7885307
>>7885544

Chili is a Mesoamerican BEAN dish. The meat is optional, the beans are not.

>>7885282
chile con carne literally means chili with beans


....so yes

>>7887670

uhm, no. Carne = meat.

chili with beans would be chile con frijoles

>>7887667
holy fuck literally no stupid fucking american retard

>>7887678
explain this nerd

>>7887667
But it's not, it is from San Antonio, which is in Texas. It traditionally contains no beans, beans may be served with it, but not cooked with it.

What belongs in borsh?

What belongs in plov?

What belongs in curry?

What belongs in a spring roll?

Some dishes are left abstract and modifyable, especially stuff that gets cooked in many different regions.

>>7887693
Explain what? A badly titled image? I don't give a fuck if you put beans in chili or not.

My only point here is that the word "carne" sure as fuck doesn't mean "beans". Sounds like you need to focus more on this, not your silly ass image.

I put macaroni noodles in my chili.

>>7887769
With meat and beans is still with meat. The beans don't cancel it out.

>>7887704
>beans may be served with it, but not cooked with it
kill yourself immediately

>>7887776

Agreed.

I didn't say they did cancel it out. I said that "chili con carne" doesn't mean "Chili with beans", it means "chili with meat". I was discussing the translation of the word "Carne". It means meat, not beans.

I don't have a problem with people putting beans in chili.

>>7885282
I don't like them, maybe if they were smashed up into the chili.

>>7887783
you seem rused

>>7885282
They are arguably the best part.

I like beans in chili.

Get over it.

>>7888992

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


YANKEES GET OUT OUT OUT

>>7885302
This